The family entertainment titan isn't overpaying because it has the resources to milk Marvel's character library better than Marvel ever could on its own. And by "milk" I don't mean brand-deflating moves like having an "X-Men Babies" series on Disney Channel or turning The Fantastic Four into a teen vocal group. Give Disney a little more credit, folks.

Marvel also isn't selling itself on the cheap. The comic book giant's financials will always be lumpy, so cut your 2008 growth projections short. Analysts expect earnings this year to clock in at roughly half of last year's profitability. Disney could have -- quite possibly -- waited a few months and paid less.

Marvel is a $3 billion company on its own, or a $5 billion company in Disney's trained hands. So $4 billion is a win-win price that both sides will learn to live with.

Why is this company worth more under Disney's watch? Let's go over a few of the reasons.

1. Disney is smart enough to let Marvel be MarvelAs a Pixar investor when Disney came calling three years ago, I can sympathize with Marvel shareholders who feel that they are trading long-term wealth for short-term gains. However, I have no tears for the worrywarts who feel that Disney will somehow Disney-fy Marvel.

This isn't Disney's first acquisition. It won't be its last. Let's go over how Disney has been able to keep a "hands-off" approach when it comes to guiding purchased entertainment companies.

The prize jewel in its 1996 purchase of Capital Cities/ABC is ESPN. I have yet to see a pinstriped Goofy suit up as a referee or an official in any televised sporting event.

Disney's deal to acquire Pixar was more desperate and expensive than this week's Marvel coup, and the Pixar campus has continued to raise the bar in computer animation with little interference.

Letting Marvel be Marvel isn't enough to justify a buyout, naturally. There have to be strategic fits and synergies to justify the market premium.

2. Marvel fills Disney's young, male voidIf you're a kid, Disney has it all. There are fairies and princesses for young girls. Young boys can take heart in pirates and computer-rendered racing cars. For the preteen set, it's more of a girl's world. There's the Jonas Brothers as well as Disney's prowess as a teen-actress factory, with Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan passing the baton to Miley Cyrus, who in turn is now moving on to let Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato steal the show.

Disney knows that it will win back teen boys once they become young fathers, but there's a lost decade in there that Disney would love to get back.

Its theme parks lack the monster thrills you'll find at regional chains Six Flags and Cedar Fair (NYSE: FUN) . There's ESPN as a killer brand, but it obviously doesn't own the actual sporting leagues or the star athletes.

Marvel seriously ramps up the cool points in a juicy and jaded demographic segment that Disney would love to get to know a little better.

3. Disney gives Marvel room to failThere was a lot riding on Iron Man as Marvel's first self-financed feature. In inking its complicated $525 million credit facility with Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC) Merrill Lynch to bankroll the funded flicks, Marvel had to put up movie rights to the featured characters as collateral.

Iron Man panned out, of course, but what if it had been another Elektra? Disney won't need to tap that credit line. It can give Marvel the freedom to ramp up its production slate and the wiggle room to fail from time to time.

4. Let's play some gamesDisney has been making a serious push into online gaming since acquiring Club Penguin. It has also ramped up its in-house software development. Marvel is perfect, since it gives Disney a 5,000-character easel to begin carving out opportunities on both fronts.

Disney is no Activision Blizzard (Nasdaq: ATVI) , but this also means that Marvel won't have to turn to third-party developers such as Activision to put out its wildly successful Spider-Man games. As developer deals lapse, you can expect Disney to take a larger role in releasing Marvel games and launching online experiences.

5. There's more room to parkOne of the oldest cyberspace rumors is that Disney's fifth park in Florida will be an edgy attraction themed to Disney's villains. It would be Disney's way to win the thrill-seeking teens that have temporarily outgrown Disney's family-friendly charms.

The villains scenario is just fanboy drivel, it seems, but Marvel now gives Disney the ammo to open up a high-octane park that can match Cedar Fair and Six Flags, coaster for coaster.

There's a problem, though. If you leave Disney's Florida parks and go northeast on I-4, you will bump into Universal Orlando's Islands of Adventure a dozen miles later. The high-tech park features a whole land devoted to Marvel superheroes.

Something has to give. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Universal can retain the rights to its Marvel-themed attractions -- including the signature Spider-Man dark ride and iconic Hulk coaster -- as long as it adheres to the agreement terms.

Disney can open rides based on the licensed characters, but only west of the Mississippi. In other words, California's Disneyland can add new rides themed to Spider-Man and X-Men, but its hands are tied in incorporating marquee characters in its larger Florida resort.

This will be a game of chicken. How long can Universal Orlando -- a theme park complex owned by Blackstone (NYSE: BX) and General Electric (NYSE: GE) -- contribute to the licensing coffers and ambassadorial wishes of Mickey Mouse's Marvel? By the same token, it can also weaken Disney World's appeal by maintaining its Marvel attractions.

Neither party will flinch, so expect a Disney buyout at some point. If not, expect Disney to still do something at its parks with the hotter Marvel characters that it can mine for theme park content.

Longtime Fool contributor Rick Munarriz can usually be found at Walt Disney World. Not today, though. He does own shares in Disney and units in Cedar Fair. He is also part of theRule Breakersnewsletter research team, seeking out tomorrow's ultimate growth stocks a day early.The Fool has a disclosure policy.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

There is at least one fundamental problem here though and as you allude to it, it's all about licensing. Just like with the movies, where Marvel really didn't self-produce films until now and instead licensed the characters out to other studios, and as with the studios, licensing is really what controls the fate of the Marvel properties regardless of whose hands are in the pot.

That in mind, the MMORPG and Disney's foray into that market is in fact ripe for Marvel, particularly with DCU Online coming into the picture, but there's already a deal in place, so it won't likely be Disney's game. Gazillion already has a recent multi-year licensing online gaming deal in place with Marvel, so it's likely they will be the ones coming out of the gate to enter the online market using Marvel properties.

Because of the popularity of Marvel and its willingness to license out its primary properties, there are probably few areas that Disney would have any exclusivity in, at least in the beginning.

And if we talk about the potential of Disneyland using Marvel properties, it's doubtful. I don't believe Disney has any intention of blocking Universal Studios from exploiting what it already has - they have already built the investment for the product and all Disney needs to do is collect a royalty check.

That's what this deal is about. It's not about theme parks, or theatrical productions, or video games, or any other particular vertical market whose followers have all written dozens of articles on contemplating the future when Iger and Staggs have made their intentions clear. This is about licensing and Disney's 'uncanny' ability to market and exploit properties in a way that can truly take the Marvel Universe universal.

It is, exactly as you say, no different than Disney acquiring Pixar exept that (as you rightfully point out), it was an act of desperation then. This appears to have no sign of desperation on either side, just two worlds colliding and creating a deafening blast of synergy.